Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 47:2/3 (2020) ► pp.266–302

The monolingual approach in American linguistic fieldwork

| Boston College

In the first decades of the 20th century, fieldwork — collection of language data through direct interaction with a native speaker — was foundational to American linguistics. After a mid-century period of neglect, fieldwork has recently been revived as a means to address the increasing rate of language endangerment worldwide. Twenty-first century American fieldwork inherits some, but not all, of the traits of earlier fieldwork. This article examines the history of one controversial issue, whether a field worker should adopt a monolingual approach, learning and using the target language as a medium of exchange with native speakers, as opposed to relying on interpreters or a lingua franca. Although the monolingual approach is not widely practiced, modern proponents argue strongly for its value. The method has been popularized though ‘monolingual demonstrations’ to audiences of linguists, which, curiously, are not wholly consistent with the character of 21st-century fieldwork.

Keywords: field methods, monolingual approach, monolingual demonstration, linguistic fieldwork, 20th century American linguistics, Franz Boas, Kenneth L. Pike, Daniel L. Everett
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Monolingual approaches in the first 20th century wave of American fieldwork
    • 2.1The language of fieldwork in Boas and his students
    • 2.2The language of fieldwork in Bloomfield and the post-Bloomfieldians
    • 2.3The monolingual approach in 20th century American missionary fieldwork
    • 2.4Fieldworkers and their partners in the first half of the 20th century
  • 3.Shift in the status and practice of linguistic fieldwork, 1960 to 1980s
  • 4.Monolingual approaches in a second wave of fieldwork, from 1990
    • 4.1Comparison between first and second waves of 20th-century American fieldwork
    • 4.2The language of fieldwork in the second wave of American linguistic fieldwork
    • 4.3Controversy over monolingual methods
  • 5.The monolingual approach demonstrated
    • 5.1Prehistory of the monolingual demonstration
    • 5.2Pike’s and Everett’s monolingual demonstrations
    • 5.3What do monolingual demonstrations aim to accomplish?
    • 5.4Monolingual demonstrations in the context of 21st century fieldwork
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.00078.tho
References (124)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2007 “Linguistic Fieldwork: Setting the scene”. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60:1.3–11.Google Scholar
Andresen, Julie Tetel
1990 Linguistics in America 1769–1924: A Critical History. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter K.
2006 “Data and Language Documentation”. In Gippert, Himmelmann & Mosel, 87–112.Google Scholar
Berman, Judith
1994 “George Hunt and the Kwak’wala Texts”. Anthropological Linguistics 36:4.482–515.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1917 “Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis”. University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 31:2–41.157–566. Champaign, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
1944 “Preface”. Linguistic Structures of Native America ed. by Harry Hoijer, 5. New York: Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 6.Google Scholar
Boas, Frans
1966 “Introduction”. Handbook of American Indian Languages, Part 1 ed. by Preston Holder, 1–79. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press. [Originally published by Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 1911.]Google Scholar
Boas, Franz
1917 “Introductory”. International Journal of American Linguistics 1:1.1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bochnak, M. Ryan & Lisa Matthewson
eds. 2015 Methodologies in Semantic Fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borchgrevink, Axel
2003 “Silencing Language: Of anthropologists and interpreters”. Ethnography 4:1.95–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouquiaux, Luc & Jacqueline M. C. Thomas
1992 Studying and Describing Unwritten Languages trans. by James Thomas. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. [Originally published as Enquête et description des langues à tradition orale. Paris: Société d’Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France, 1st ed. 1971; 2nd ed. 1976.]Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire
2008 Linguistic Fieldwork: A practical guide. New York: Palgrave Macmillian. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulletin of the Linguistic Society of America
1940 No. 13.Google Scholar
1946 No. 19.Google Scholar
1947 No. 20.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins
1984 Learning a Field Language. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press. (2nd ed. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press 2000.)Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah, Elizabeth Frazer, Penelope Harvey, M. B. H. Rampton & Kay Richardson
1992 “Introduction”. Researching Language: Issues of power and method ed. by Deborah Cameron, Elizabeth Frazer, Penelope Harvey, M. B. H. Rampton & Kay Richardson, 1–28. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L.
2001 “The Role of Text Collection and Elicitation in Linguistic Fieldwork”. In Newman & Ratliff 2001a, 152–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L. & Willem J. de Reuse
eds. 2011 Handbook of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1966 “The Current Scene in Linguistics: Present directions”. College English 27:8.587–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chronology of the Life and Work of KL Pike
2019 Posted on the website of SIL International. Accessed 6 October 2019 at [URL]
Cowan, George
1975 “The Monolingual Approach to Studying Amuzgo”. Language Learner’s Field Guide ed. by Alan Healey, 272–276. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Crowley, Terry
2007 Field Linguistics: A beginner’s guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa
2009 “Research Models, Community Engagement, and Linguistic Fieldwork: Reflections on working within Canadian indigenous communities”. Language Documentation and Conservation 3:1.15–50.Google Scholar
Dallas International University
2019 “Language Learning Demonstration Promo”. Dallas, Texas: Dallas International University. Video accessed 6 October 2019 at [URL]
Darnell, Regna
1990 “Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, and the Americanist Text Tradition”. Historiographia Linguistica 17:1/2.129–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 And Along Came Boas: Continuity and revolution in Americanist anthropology (= Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Debenport, Erin
2010 “The Potential Complexity of ‘Universal Ownership’: Cultural property, textual circulation, and linguistic fieldwork”. Language and Communication 301.204–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2016 “Fieldwork Elicitation Showcase (Parts 1–3)”. Video filmed 27 November 2016. Eugene, Ore.: University of Oregon. Accessed 6 October 2019 at [URL]
Dixon, R[obert] M[alcolm] W[ard]
2007 “Field Linguistics: A minor manual”. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60:1.12–31.Google Scholar
Dobrin, Lise M.
2008 “From Linguistic Elicitation to Eliciting the Linguist: Lessons in community empowerment from Melanesia”. Language 84:2.300–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ed. 2009 “SIL International and the Disciplinary Culture of Linguistics”. Language 85:3.618–658. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrin, Lise M. & Saul Schwartz
2016 “Collaboration or Participant Observation? Rethinking Models of ‘Linguistic Social Work’”. Language Documentation and Conservation 101.253–277.Google Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina & Michael Daniel
2018 “Field Linguistics in Daghestan: A very personal account”. In Sarvasy & Forker, 79–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, Arienne M.
2006 “Ethics and Practicalities of Cooperative Fieldwork”. In Gippert, Himmelmann & Mosel, 31–66.Google Scholar
Escalante, Fernando
1990 “Setting the Record Straight on Yaqui Passives”. International Journal of American Linguistics 56:2.289–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everett, Daniel L.
1983 A Língua Pirahã e a Teoria da Sintaxe: Descrição, perspectivas e theoria. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.]Google Scholar
2001 “Monolingual Field Research”. In Newman & Ratliff 2001a, 166–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “Monolingual Fieldwork”. Video filmed April 2002 at Live Issues in Descriptive Linguistic Analysis: A seminar in honor of Kenneth L. Pike, produced by A. L. Becker & Mark Sicoli. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan. Accessed 29 February 2020 at [URL]
2005 “Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language”. Current Anthropology 46:4.621–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Language: The cultural tool. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
2013 “Monolingual Demonstration”. Video filmed at Linguistic Society of America Institute 24 June to 19 July 2013, produced by LSA-ISS Media Center Productions. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan. Accessed 29 February 2020 at [URL]
Falk, Julia S.
2014 “The LSA Linguistic Institutes”. Presentation at the Ninetieth Anniversary of the Linguistic Society of America: A Commemorative Symposium, January 4, 2014. Posted on the website of the Linguistic Society of America. Accessed 6 October 2019 at [URL]
Foley, William A.
1999 Review of The Korowai of Irian Jaya , by Gerrit van Enk & Lourens de Vries. New York: Oxford University 1997 Language in Society 28:3.470–472.Google Scholar
Fowler, Catherine S. & Don D. Fowler
1986 “Edward Sapir, Tony Tillohash and Southern Paiute Studies”. New Perspectives in Language, Culture, and Personality: Proceedings of the Edward Sapir Centenary Conference (Ottawa, 1–3 Oct. 1984) (= Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series III, 41) ed. by William Cowan, Michael K. Foster & E. F. K. Koerner, 41–65. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gil, David
2001 “Escaping Eurocentrism: Fieldwork as a process of unlearning”. In Newman & Ratliff 2001a, 102–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Ulrike Mosel
eds. 2006 Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleason, Harold A.
1961 An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. Rev. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R.
1976 “Boas, Sapir, and Bloomfield”. American Indian Languages and American Linguistics: Papers of the Second Golden Anniversary Symposium of the Linguistic Society of America, held at the University of California, Berkeley, on November 8 and 9, 1974, 59–69. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L.
1965 “On the Use of Informants in Field-Work”. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 10:2/3.108–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1966 Review of Handling Unsophisticated Linguistic Informants , by Alan Healey. Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra 1964 American Anthropologist 681.807–808.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken[neth L.], Michael Krauss, Lucille J. Watahomigie, Akira Y. Yamamoto, Colette Craige, LaVerne Masayesva Jeanne & Nora C. England
1992 “Endangered Languages”. Language 68:1.1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. & C[harles] F. Voegelin
1953 “Eliciting in Linguistics”. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9:1.59–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2000 Review of Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In Memoriam Johannes Bechert , Bände 1–2 by Winfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner & Wolfgang Wildgen. Tübingen: Narr. Studies in Language 24:3.747–750.Google Scholar
Healey, Alan
1964 Handling Unsophisticated Linguistic Informants. (= Pacific Linguistics Series A, No. 2). Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane H.
2006 “The Ethnography of Language and Language Documentation”. In Gippert, Himmelmann & Mosel, 113–128.Google Scholar
Hill, Kenneth C.
2002 “On Publishing the Hopi Dictionary ”. Making Dictionaries: Preserving indigenous languages of the Americas ed. by William Frawley, Kenneth Hill & Pamela Munro, 299–311. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
1989 “Documentary and Descriptive Linguistics”. Linguistics 361. 161–195.Google Scholar
2008 “Reproduction and Preservation of Linguistic Knowledge: Linguistics’ response to language endangerment”. Annual Review of Anthropology 371.337–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
1958 A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 “Leonard Bloomfield: After fifty years”. Historiographia Linguistica 26:3.295–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, A[leksandr] E[vgen’evič]
1977 The Methodology of Field Investigations in Linguistics (Setting up the problem) (= Janua Linguarum Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata, Series Minor 142). The Hague: Mouton. [Originally published as Metodika polevyx issledovanij. Moscow: Publications of the Department of Structural and Applied Linguistics, Monograph 101 1972.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K.
2004 “Notes on Missionary Linguistics in North America”. Missionary Linguistics / Lingüística misionera: Selected papers from the First International Conference on Missionary Linguistics, Oslo, 13–16 March 2003 (= Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 106) ed. by Otto Zwartjes and Even Hovdhaugen, 47–80. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, Wesley Y. & Erin Haynes
2010 “Making ‘Collaboration’ Collaborative: An examination of perspectives that frame linguistic field research”. Language Documentation and Conservation 41.268–293.Google Scholar
Lindenfeld, Jacqueline
1973 Yaqui Syntax. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Loving, Aretta
1975 “On Learning Monolingually”. Language Learner’s Field Guide ed. by Alan Healey, 267–271. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lowie, Robert H.
1940 “Native Languages as Ethnographic Tools”. American Anthropologist 42:1.81–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makkai, Adam
1986 “The Lexio-centric Approach to Descriptive Linguistics”. Language in Global Perspective: Papers in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the Summer Institute of Linguistics 1935–1985 ed. by Benjamin F. Elson, 47–61. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Margetts, Anna & Andrew Margetts
2012 “Audio and Video Recording Techniques for Linguistic Research”. In Thieberger, 13–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, Bradley, Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker & Gary Holton
eds. 2018 “Reflections on Language Documentation: 20 years after Himmelmann 1989”. Language Documentation and Conservation Special Publication 15. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Fiona & Thierno Seydou Sall
2001 “The Give and Take of Fieldwork: Noun classes and other concerns in Fatick, Senegal”. In Newman & Martha Ratliff 2001a, 189–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLeod, Ruth A.
1961 “Monolingual Approach”. Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session 51:Article 111.33–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mead, Margaret
1939 “Native Languages as Field-work Tools”. American Anthropologist 41:2.189–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2001 “Who Shapes the Record: The speaker and the linguist”. In Newman & Ratliff 2001a, 34–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, Leslie C.
2009 “On Communicative Competence…in the Field”. Language and Communication 291.244–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike
2006 “Fieldwork and Community Language Work”. In Gippert, Himmelmann & Mosel, 67–85.Google Scholar
2012 “Morphosyntactic Analysis on the Field: A guide to the guides”. In Thieberger, 72–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Stephen O.
1994 Theory Groups and the Study of Language in North America: A social history (= Amsterdam Studies in the History and Theory of Linguistic Science, 69). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, Paul
2009 “Fieldwork and Field Methods in Linguistics”. Language Documentation and Conservation 3:1.113–125.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul & Martha Ratliff
eds. 2001a Linguistic Fieldwork Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001b “Introduction”. In Newman & Ratliff, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1947 “Field Techniques in Descriptive Linguistics”. International Journal of American Linguistics 13:3.138–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1949 Morphology: The descriptive analysis of words. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
1981 “Informants or Colleagues?” A Festschrift for Native Speaker ed. by Florian Coulmas, 169–174. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penfield, Susan D., Angelina Serratos, Benjamin V. Tucker, Amelia Flores, Gilford Harper, Johnny Hill Jr. & Nora Vasquez
2008 “Community Collaborations: Best practices for North American indigenous language documentation”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1911.187–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L.
1977 “Into the Unknown: Learning language by gesture”. DVD 1 in the series Pike on Language , produced by Mack Woodruff & Marcia Jablonski. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Television Studios.Google Scholar
1982 Linguistic Concepts: An Introduction to Tagmemics. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
1993 Talk, Thought, and Thing: The emic road to conscious knowledge. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Posted on the website of SIL International. Accessed 6 October 2019 at [URL]
1998 “A Linguistic Pilgrimage”. In First Person Singular III: Autobiographies by North American scholars in the language sciences (= Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 88) ed. by E. F. K. Koerner, 143–158. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M.
1979 Some Syntactic Rules in Mohawk. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren
2006 “Ethical Issues in Linguistic Fieldwork: An overview”. Journal of Academic Ethics 41.123–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Documentary Linguistics and Community Relations”. Language Documentation and Conservation 51.187–207.Google Scholar
2012 “Ethical Issues in Linguistic Fieldwork”. In Thieberger, 407–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohner, Ronald P.
ed. 1969 The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and diaries of Franz Boas written on the northwest coast from 1886 to 1931 trans. by Hedy Parker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette & Daniel L. Everett
2012 Linguistic Fieldwork: A student guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samarin, William J.
1967 Field Linguistics: A guide to linguistic field work. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1923 “Text Analyses of Three Yana Dialects”. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 201.263–294.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward & Alfred L. Kroeber
1984 The Sapir–Kroeber Correspondence: Letters between Edward Sapir and A. L. Kroeber 1905–1925 ed. by Victor Golla (= Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, Report 6). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sarvasy, Hannah
2016 “Monolingual Fieldwork in and Beyond the Classroom: The Logooli experience at UCLA”. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 511.471–484.Google Scholar
Sarvasy, Hannah & Diana Forker
eds. 2018 Word Hunters: Field linguists on fieldwork (= Studies in Language Companion Series, 194). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shulist, Sarah
2013 “Collaborating on Language: Contrasting the theory and practice of collaboration in linguistics and anthropology”. Collaborative Anthropologies 61.1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Richard John
1969 The Phonology of the Navaho Verb. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.]Google Scholar
Stocking, George W., Jr.
1974 “The Boas Plan for the Study of American Indian Languages”. Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and paradigms ed. Dell Hymes, 454–484. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina
2018 “My Fieldwork, from Georgia to Guinea”. In Sarvasy & Forker, 123–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thieberger, Nicholas
ed. 2012 The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thieberger, Nicholas & Andrea L. Berez
2012 “Linguistic Data Management”. In Thieberger, 90–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Udell, Gerald, John McKenna, Sara Chapman, Francis Xavier & Johnnie D. Ragsdale, Jr.
1972 “Responses of Co-Workers to the Word ‘Informant’’’. Studies in Linguistics in Honor of Raven I. McDavid, Jr. ed. by Lawrence M. Davies, 441–453. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, E[ugenius] M[arius]
1961 “The Study of the So-Called Exotic Languages and General Linguistics”. Lingua 91.417–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voegelin, C[harles] F.
1959 Review of Eastern Ojibwa: Grammatical sketch, texts, and word list , ed. by Charles F. Hockett. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press 1957 Language 35:1.109–125.Google Scholar
1974 Review of A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology , ed. by Charles F. Hockett. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press 1970; Mentalism and Objectivism in Linguistics: The source of Leonard Bloomfield’s psychology of language, by Edwin Esper. New York: American Elsevier 1968; and ‘Review of Hockett’s Anthology, by Z[ellig] S. Harris, International Journal of American Linguistics 391.252–255 1973 Language Sciences 301.35–37.Google Scholar
Voegelin, Charles F. & Leonard Bloomfield
1987 “Correspondence in Ojibwa”. Anthropological Linguistics 29:1.1–22.Google Scholar
Voegelin, Charles F. & Zellig S. Harris
1951 “Methods for Determining Intelligibility among Dialects of Natural Languages”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95:3.322–329.Google Scholar
Voegelin, C[harles] F. & Florence M. Robinett
1954 “Obtaining a Linguistic Sample”. International Journal of American Linguistics 20:2.89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallis, Ethel Emily & Mary Angela Bennett
1959 Two Thousand Tongues to Go: The story of the Wycliffe Bible translators. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Werner, Oswald
1994 “Ethnography and Translation: Issues and challenges”. Sartoniana 71.59–135. Ghent: Communication and Cognition.Google Scholar
Werner, Tom
2017 “Tracking the Parallelism of Difference with Ostension Schemes”. Language Sciences 621.139–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, Leslie A.
1963 “The ethnography and ethnology of Franz Boas”. Bulletin of the Texas Memorial Museum Bulletin 61.1–76.Google Scholar
Wilner, Isaiah Lorado
2015 “Friends in This World: The relationship of George Hunt and Franz Boas”. The Franz Boas Papers. Vol. 1: Franz Boas as public intellectual – theory, ethnography, activism ed. by Regna Darnell, Michelle Hamilton, Robert L. A. Hancock & Joshua Smith, 163–189. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Wise, Mary Ruth, Thomas N. Headland & Ruth Margaret Brend
eds. 2003 Language and Life: Essays in memory of Kenneth L. Pike. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.Google Scholar
Wolff, John U.
1987 “Bloomfield as an Austronesianist”. Historiographia Linguistica 14:1.173–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C.
2011 “Language Documentation”. The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages ed. by Peter K. Austin & Julia Sallabank, 159–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yamada, Racquel-María
2007 “Collaborative Linguistic Fieldwork: Practical application of the empowerment model”. Language Documentation and Conservation 1:2.257–282.Google Scholar
Yegerlehner, John
1955 “A Note on Eliciting Techniques”. International Journal of American Linguistics 21:3.286–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zgusta, L[adislav]
1968 Review of Handling Unsophisticated Linguistic Informants , by Alan Healey. Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra 1964 Archiv Orientalini 36.332.Google Scholar